That's an example of "mikvah"....this isn't baptism...it is an example of the "mikvah" ritual washing....a JEWISH ritual washing that was the precursor of Christian baptism .....the "mikvah" was not "baptism".

Still, it seems that having water poured over one was remarkably effective in removing filthiness and idols. And Jesus was Jewish.

Quote:

By John's time I believe the Essenes practiced baptism....and it was adopted by the church as they were influenced by the Essenes.

No comment as I have no idea who the Essenes were or are or whatever and have to research it a little. Did the Essenes baptise using total immersion on only people who had reached a certain age and use the Trinitarian Formula? (You don't need to answer this; I'll see what I can find by googling).

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

I can only rely on that which is recorded... that record ... proves fact.

I hope it's OK if I step in here. I agree with this statement; well, kind of. The bible is silent on so much. It can't possibly cover every contingency.

Quote:

What is recorded ... is a specific/ simple and very clear definition.
To answer your question ... Jesus says it right here ...
Mark 16:16 - He Who Believes and Is Baptized Will Be Saved

And that is the Word of God. So he who believes and is baptised will be saved, assuming there are no other qualifiers and that the Scripture is not taken out of context, etc.

When I checked I did find something. You didn't post all of Mark 16:16. This is the whole statement:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[Mark 16:16, KJV (I normally use the Douay-Rheims but I wanted to use a Protestant bible in this case)]

It does not say that one must believe first and be baptised second in order to be saved (in fact, it doesn't even say that one must be baptised to be saved but that is irrelevant as it doesn't address the point you are trying to make). One could certainly read this sentence as meaning that one can be baptised and then later believe and will be saved and if this is true, infants can certainly be baptised and then believe when they have the ability to believe.

Quote:

and again... Peter said the same thing ... simply and clearly ...
Acts 2:38 - Repent and Be Baptized for the Remission of Sins.

And as this is in the bible it is the Word of God, assuming there are no other qualifiers and that the Scripture is not taken out of context, etc.

Quote:

... In both cases it is a 2 step process. ... Cognitive choice is required as a prerequisite to taking the next step ... and both scriptures confirm each other.

It doesn't really say that as I read it. Where does either Scripture passage state that cognitive choice is required as a prerequisite to taking the next step? The first one you presented simply says that he who believes and is baptised will be saved. The second one simply says repent and be baptised. It is not necessarily a 2-step process.

Also, your first statement ("He who believes and is baptised will be saved") doesn't necessarily mean that one must believe first and be baptised second; your second statement ("Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins") doesn't necessarily mean that one must repent first and be baptised second. The second statement could easily be split into two statements:

(1) Repent for the remission of sins.
(2) Be baptised for the remission of sins.

Quote:

But I think God covered that base as well...
Matt 19: 14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Please tell me I misread this; that you are not supporting abortion!

Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin. It brings people into the presence of God. It is holy and sacred; a Sacrament. It gives the person who is being baptised grace. Surely this is something that we should want even for young infants! But not abortion! If this were true we should take the life of every child (and it breaks my heart deeply to even write this!) so they can go straight to God. No - we should baptise them and bring them into God's Church. We should not hinder them by making them wait until a certain age - they will make that cognitive choice you refer to at the time of their Confirmation; another Sacrament. Let their godparents and parents make the decision for them at Baptism and raise them in the Church and woe be to those who do not take their role seriously because they are hindering them.

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Originally Posted by 1voice
You folks ask me for Biblical evidence ... and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

To me .. that didnt matter ... the point I was making was that some Catholics use the terms interchangeably and those that do so ... know what the Catholic Sacrament is... and know exactly what each other is referring to.

How do you know that "those that do so...know what the Catholic Sacrament is...and know exactly what each other is referring to? It may be true in your limited experience but there is no way you can know this about all or even most of "those that do so" simply because you don't know them or what they mean when they use these terms.

The most you can logically know is that some Catholics use the terms interchangeably and some of those that do so know what the Catholic Sacrament is and some that do so know exactly what each other is referring to - which is based on your limited experience (such as your family).

What I would say is that those who use the terms interchangeably do not fully understand the Catholic Sacrament because if they did they would not be using the terms interchangeably. They are not synonyms. Lots of Catholics use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to mean "Catholic Church, Latin Rite." But they are using the term "Roman Catholic Church" incorrectly.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that I understand the Sacrament of Baptism fully; it's actually the most difficult Sacrament for me to understand and I have a lot of learning to do before I understand it fully and I may have to wait until I am in heaven (through the grace, love, and most definitely the mercy of God) before I understand fully.

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

...perhaps that is why me and mine tend to use the phrase "community of believers" (as opposed to simply "community"). If someone can actually request baptism, then cognitive ability must be present in that person. If that person is not making or is not capable of making the request, then it is an odd means of inclusion within the body of believers....and it is "believers" that is used to describe the body so often in the NT...and no one is labelled as "baptized" in the NT who isn't a believer..

It's wonderful to be able to request to be baptised. My Mom was baptised on her deathbed at the age of 19. She was still taking classes to become a Catholic when she went into a diabetic coma and she was actually declared dead and shoved into an ambulance so hard she ended up with a head injury. I just wonder if she had "enough" understanding to believe when she was baptised while in a coma and not having completed those classes. She didn't have the ability to request to be baptised as she was unconscious and in grave condition and her understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Catholic Church was not thorough enough to allow her to receive the Sacrament as it would be given under normal circumstances. The request for her baptism was made by her roommate.

She wasn't baptised twice. She was baptised as a member of the Catholic Church that night in the hospital as they waited for her to finally die and remain dead and she also received what was then called Extreme Unction (and is now called Sacrament of the Sick).

Did she believe "enough" for you to call her one of the community of believers?

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

That's an example of "mikvah"....this isn't baptism...it is an example of the "mikvah" ritual washing....a JEWISH ritual washing that was the precursor of Christian baptism .....the "mikvah" was not "baptism".

By John's time I believe the Essenes practiced baptism....and it was adopted by the church as they were influenced by the Essenes.

I'd like to respond to this post a second time (and where is everybody, anyway? It's time to get up, people! I'm on the West Coast of the U.S. and I've been up for hours already! Get with it!! )

Obviously the Essenes did not use the Trinitarian Formula when baptising as they were not Christian (one of my questions in post #706).

Do you have a link for a site which explains how the Church was influenced by the Essenes? So far I have found that they use what is called "immersion" but also "sprinkling" and they have several baptisms through life so I am a little confused. This is the website on which I found that:

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

It's wonderful to be able to request to be baptised. My Mom was baptised on her deathbed at the age of 19. She was still taking classes to become a Catholic when she went into a diabetic coma and she was actually declared dead and shoved into an ambulance so hard she ended up with a head injury. I just wonder if she had "enough" understanding to believe when she was baptised while in a coma and not having completed those classes. She didn't have the ability to request to be baptised as she was unconscious and in grave condition and her understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Catholic Church was not thorough enough to allow her to receive the Sacrament as it would be given under normal circumstances. The request for her baptism was made by her roommate.

She wasn't baptised twice. She was baptised as a member of the Catholic Church that night in the hospital as they waited for her to finally die and remain dead and she also received what was then called Extreme Unction (and is now called Sacrament of the Sick).

Did she believe "enough" for you to call her one of the community of believers?

Little Soldier, I'm sorry to hear about your Mom's early passing , I believe shes a member of Christs family as I believe Christs knows the heart of people.

Babies of course do not know the meaning of baptism, but I always felt that was the place of cathechism to teach them, and also I believe that should be the purpose of Confirmation is a dedication to life to Christ (almost like a second type of Baptism) Older people getting baptised of course dedicate and accept Christ at baptism.

Little Soldier, I'm sorry to hear about your Mom's early passing , I believe shes a member of Christs family as I believe Christs knows the heart of people.

Babies of course do not know the meaning of baptism, but I always felt that was the place of cathechism to teach them, and also I believe that should be the purpose of Confirmation is a dedication to life to Christ (almost like a second type of Baptism) Older people getting baptised of course dedicate and accept Christ at baptism.

If someone is unable to comprehend Christ knows that.

Oh I am so sorry; it was obvious to me but of course it wasn't obvious to anyone else. My apologies; I'm very sleepy and not communicating very well. My Mom passed on a few years ago and was over 80. She should have died when she was 19. There was no way to save her (perhaps it was the Baptism and Extreme Unction?). The lab in the hospital couldn't test her blood because it was closed for the weekend! I'm glad things have improved, at least in that area. My grandfather got a telegram saying she was not expected to last the night and he hopped a train to get to her. We (her children) used to say "she takes a lickin' but keeps on tickin'." We had been waiting for her to pass on for at least twenty years before she did pass because she had horribly brittle Diabetes.

She remained a faithful Catholic. She never expressed a doubt about her faith in the Church. I love her very much and miss her but I know I will be with her again.

She was (and I'm sure still is) amazing.

From what I've read recently you're right about Confirmation. It's when that cognitive ability and understanding join so that one dedicates his/her life to God and His Church.

I'm very happy that I was baptised as an infant. My parents made the decision for me but they made it seriously and taught me the Catholic Faith as well as they could (I did leave for quite awhile but have been back for many years).

__________________He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

This question is intended mainly for Protestants. When, exactly did the Catholic Church as we know it now cease to be the true Christian church? Back when I was Protestant, we always focused on the early Church (up to Augustine), and then skipped to Luther, Calvin, et al. When I started looking into it, I found that Augustine and a lot of the REALLY early Christians (Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch) were very "Catholic," especially compared to the reformers. Just out of curiosity, where do most Protestants draw the line (e.g. a certain council, pope, theologian, etc.) between the early Church and the "corrupt" Roman Catholic Church?

Hi ,as a non conformist Christian,the only bad church ,is a church that doe's not keep the will of God,there is only one God,scripture says only Jesus is the way the truth the life,only through him can our sins be forgiven,Man shall not live by bread alone ,but by the word of God,see Ephesians 2 v 8 - 10 we are saved by grace, see also 1 John 4 v 1 - 3, you will know who is telling the truth by Gods word. .
it was approx 400 yrs ago that the Bible was translated into English when people read the word of God many were saved through his word,until we allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives ,we do not realise our Salvation.God cannot lie,man doe's and deceives,the Koran is one example of deception,God has no Son it says whoever believes this is a liar. although the moslems it appears are dictated to as I am lead to understand it thier book is written in Classical Arabic approx 1400 yrs ago,as Jesus said many will come as Bright shinning Angels to deceive if it were posible even the elect,as this happened through an Angel,who gave their book to them .So we must as John 1 says Test the spirits ,apparitions visitations with John 1 to see if they are who they appear to be ,otherwise this may well be a demon. and it is given to the people who cannot read the language have to rely on the high ups see fit to give it to them .so do not blame the people for their ignorance . teachers have a greater responsibility. The Church is the people . Pray and ask for guidance Jesus gives real peace .

that may be your explanation/excuse for why the NT connection between the acts of baptism and belief are so very strong, but the fact remains that it is the connection that exists...it is "believe and be baptized" and not "be born and be baptized"

hmmm....I wondered if this was in any way directed toward me:

....I see that it wasn't...no surprise there.

let me know when you would like to engage in a more mature consideration of the matter....,I have entered into long and enjoyable discussions of Augustine's view wrt the Eucharist with both Pneuma07 and Lyrikal....I would love a discussion of that quality on the matter that you raise....do you have it in yah?

I know what I said and Radical,I am not trying to offend you...seriously. However,I do sense some arrogance from you ,so please tome it down a bit. I am willing to hear your belief why you think the Eucharist is symbolic. I'll hear your position and I will respect it. Peace

Mormons use the same line of logic that you are perusing. They do it all the time. Example: We all existed as spirit beings/ sons of god... prior to this human existence based on the fact that it does not specifically say otherwise in the Bible. ... Same line of reasoning ... Different subject.

It is not my concern or my goal to convince you. I presented the evidence ... You rejected it ... No big deal.

The Bible is clear and the transliteration of the Greek word for baptism is clear. If you think that something else is just as true because it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, that is your choice.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
... No, But Jesus and Peter both gave those who were physically circumcised the opportunity to make a conscious decision to accept spiritual circumcision as well.

Quote:

Nicea:
Oh but wait a minute....you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized...the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

Hey Nicea325, I'm done with 1voice on this issue. He will never be able to answer the questions put to him because he can't back up his view on this from the bible.
Nothing but pure opinion on his part...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Oh but wait a minute....you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized...the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochias

Still waiting to hear the answer to this one. 1voice, ya there? What say you?

How do you know that "those that do so...know what the Catholic Sacrament is...and know exactly what each other is referring to?

:-)) ...
I was a Roman Catholic for 25 years. I grew up in a large extended Catholic family (hundreds of Catholics at family reunions) Close relatives were/ are Nuns and leaders in the Order of St Francis. My Grandmother made thousands of scapulars and I wore one like my life depended on it for years. Ive said the rosary more times than I can count My cousins are Leaders on the Diocesan Worship Committee... Grads with Masters degrees from top Catholic Universities. I was an alter boy for 5 years when Latin was the only way Mass was said. Attended many many novenas and Stations of the Cross. Confirmed by the Bishop. Confession every Friday and Fasted every Sunday before Communion... And we were dead meat if we even as much as got near a baloney sandwich on Friday. No Ice cream for Lent mind you!! My Dad was head of the parent teachers association at the Catholic school that I attended for 8 years... and went to Mass every school morning ... and 4 years of CCD classes in High School.
I know that startling/ embarrassing sound of someone dropping a kneeler at a solemn high mass in the pew right behind me as well as I know my own name.

I realize that the expression is not used everywhere ... but in the Catholic community that I grew up in ... It was very common and everyone knew what was up. OOOOOOK!!!

And another thing! You are a very nice person!!! Please dont be like rest of them.

not sure about the pets...otherwise you are golden
first, it was "somewhat level"
yep, if it is other than perfectly level, then the incline is in my favor (IMHO)
to be precise, the assumptions involved are not so much about the term "household"...we kinda know how that term was used. The assumptions are about the particular situations regarding Lydia's household and Luke's usage
it is not whether the term includes children, it is whether Lydia's household in particular included INFANT children (by "infant" I mean children who are too young to form a belief)....you need an infant child to be present
how much stronger in your opinion? ....can you put a percentage on the likelihood of Lydia's household containing an infant child? Let's say that you put it at 75%...if that were the only assumption involved, then the field would be slanted in your favor....but you require a second assumption.

thanks for the quote, but you missed this one:

I salute all by name, and in particular the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children.

Such usage of "household" by Ignatius highlights your second assumption, which is, that in the context, Luke's usage of "household" would have included infant children (if such even existed in Lydia's case). IOW, just b/c infant children would be included within a household in some cases, it does not mean that they would be included in all cases. For example, in the NT, belief is strongly connected to the act of baptism...a number of specific instances of baptism are described and in each case the specific person being baptized is a believer. B/c of that and b/c of statements such as "believe and be baptized" there could have been a tacit understanding (between Luke and his readers) that only believers would be included w/i those baptized. It then becomes a question of whether the term "household" could be used in a fashion that would not always include infant children, even though infant children existed within the household under consideration. That brings us to the usage of the term by Igantius. He seems to distinguish between "household" and wives and children. If you want to suggest that Epitopus' kids had moved out (and that is why they are listed separate from "household") then:

a) if kids are moving out in that culture, such a thing would reduce the likelihood of your first assumption; and

b) the problem with that suggestion is that it conflicts with Ignatius' specific mention of wives (who would not have moved out).

As such, it would seem that we have a usage of "household" (by Ignatius) that does not necessarily include chlidren. So then, in the face of those considerations, how strong is your assumption that Luke's usage of "household being baptized" would have included infant children being baptized? Is it a 67% likelihood?

IMHO the allocation of a 75% likelihood to your first assumption may not be too generous, but the allocation of a 67% likelihood for your second assumption is too generous...even still, if you rely on two asssumptions with likelihoods of 75% and 67% respectively, then you are still only at a 50% likelihood for the thing actually occurring.
chew on the above.

Clearly you have a dizzying intellect...

__________________
"Conversion is like stepping across the chimney piece out of a Looking-Glass world, where everything is an absurd caricature, into the real world God made; and then begins the delicious process of exploring it limitlessly." --Evelyn Waugh, writer, Catholic convert (1930)